Interesting Concept

An interesting concept I read from this weeks lesson was Reversing Cause and Effect. Reversing Cause and Effect is one of the two way ones can mistake in evaluating a claim. To reverse cause and effect, one mistakenly believes that a cause caused the effect, but really there is no evidence or good reason to believe so. For example, take the tale “An apple a day keeps the doctor away, that’s why I’m never sick.” This is a well known phrase, and the underlying message is if you eat one apple a day, you will be healthy and will not become sick. However, there is no good reason to believe this is true. Of course, eating an apple a day is good for your diet and will benefit your health, but eating an apple will not fight off all of the infection and/or bacteria that one can inherit from another person who is sick. They are most likely never sick because they eat a well balanced diet in general, which as result helped their immune system strengthen, which is most likely why they are never sick.

Mission Critical Website

The topic that I found most interesting on the Mission Critical Website was the Introduction to Conditional Arguments page. The page explains that “if” and “then” are most likely always present in conditional arguments; where as “if” is the antecedent, and “then” is the consequent. Also, the website states that “the first premise established the condition--the relationship between the antecedent and the consequent.” The antecedent and the consequent can also be interchangeable, as long as the claim starts with “if.” For example, a) “If I don’t go grocery shopping, I won’t have food to eat,” and b) “I won’t have food to eat if I don’t go grocery shopping.” Both sentences contain the same words and hold the same meaning; only the wording varies. When dealing the Conditional Arguments, it is important to have both the antecedent and the consequent. If a claim has only one of the two, the validity and comprehension of the claim will be faulty.

Cause and Effect Website

I found the Cause and Effect Website very useful. Although it reviewed Inductive reasoning and Casual Arguments, which we have already read about, it personally helped me comprehend the dynamics of the two. It gives an example about who is to blame for the an accident; a bicyclist who swerved into the traffic lane to maneuver over a parked car, or the car that slammed on it’s breaks to avoid hitting the bicyclist, which the following the car hits due to sudden braking. Because this argument deals with causation, the reading describes the two rules of dealing with causation: 1) “The cause must precede the event in time” and 2) “Even a strong correlation is insufficient to prove causation.” A strong correlation can be faulty because coincidences and reversed causation are still possibilities. These two rules are vital when critically thinking, because there are many variations that are possible, which can alter the situation dramatically. If there is not a fully comprehension of the situation that deals with causation, it is impossible to make an accurate decision. That is why in the example provided on the website, the case that involved bicyclist and the car that had to slam on its breaks had to go to court in order to see who was to blame.

Difficult to Understand

One concept that I found difficult to understand was Sign Reasoning. When you use Sign Reasoning, one assumes that one event is the indicator of another event that is to follow. For example, many people believe that if they walk under a latter, break glass, or have a black cat cross your path, you will have bad luck. There has never been any reliable research done that proves any of these methods liable, however, most of the population believes these old wise tails and go out of their way to avoid doing these things. Also, when people wake up with a sore throat, they automatically assume they are getting sick and are getting a cold. The reasoning of this concept, is due to the fact that when you are sick, your throat is sore; therefore, a slightly sore throat is an indicator that you will be sick soon,. http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=sign+reasoning&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Interesting Concept

Something interesting that I found in the reading was the section about Judging Analogies. When judging an analogy, it’s important to hear both sides of the story before making your decision. If you only hear one side of the story, the statement is “too vague to use as a premise.” After both sides of the story are stated, then one needs to find the general principle from both sides. With the general principle clearly stated, then one is to state their premises that support their conclusion. If the premises do not support the conclusion, or are not valid, then the analogy will not be considered valid. I feel as if most people apply these steps when they are caught in the middle of a dispute between friends, family, ect. It is always important to hear both sides of the story, or else you can be drawing a conclusion of false premises.

Interesting Concept

An interesting concept that I read in Chapter 10 and did not previously discuss is the Appeal to Spite. The Epstein text explains this appeal as “‘You shouldn’t help anyone who has refused to help you (recently),’” (193). An example of an appeal to spite would be “I’m not going to help Jim do his homework because he wouldn’t help me unload the groceries yesterday.” They do not want to do Jim a favor, because they do not feel as if they owe it to Jim to help him. However, Jim may have been busy, or physically incapable to help unload the groceries; however, just because they did not get help, they feel as if Jim does not deserve help as well. This is an immature and unreliable tactic, which unnecessarily punishes others. This appeal also encourages the “principle that two rights make a right,” (193). Obviously, we all know that this principle is not valid or benefit one person. However, many of those who hold grudges abuse this principle often.

Page 195, #3

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.michaelshouse.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/friends_type.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.michaelshouse.com/blog/methamphetamine-ads-need-to-make-an-impact/&usg=__QwhGted12aRnkDUYSj0oJed6mGg=&h=460&w=1000&sz=604&hl=en&start=4&zoom=1&tbnid=KvpS3jWYZeEpXM:&tbnh=69&tbnw=149&prev=/images%3Fq%3Danti-drug%2Badvertisements%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1050%26bih%3D576%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1

I chose to find an advertisement that uses appeal to fear. I believe this is a good argument because the advertisement is advertising the dangers of meth, which is a beneficial message to the community. Many times the dangers of meth are overlooked; however, meth is one of the leading causes in teenage deaths in America. In the advertisement, the two girls look unappealing with greasy hair and dark eyes, which plays into the fear factor. The advertisement also communicates clearly that just from sharing a needle, you can contract a deadly disease. One of the factors that I feel contributes a large portion of the fear factor is the white text box that reads “Meth. Not even once.” It makes clear that even if you try meth just once, you have a high chance in contracting a disease and turning your world upside down. With advertisements like these, I feel they communicate an important message that makes an impact.

Appeal to Emotion

The Epstein text states that the Appeal to Emotion is “do[es] and should play a role in our reasoning” (191). I agree that Appeal to Emotion should play an important role, because when making decisions without considering emotion, decisions can be harmful and detrimental to others. The Appeal to Emotion has various appeals that apply to different aspects of emotions; one that appealed to me the most was appeal to pity. This appealed to me the most because I feel as if it is most prevalent in our society. Appeal to Pity targets one’s pity and empathy towards others. An example of this that I personally see often on television are the infomercials that try to encourage the community to donate money towards children in third world countries or animals who are in a pound or other harmful setting. In these commercials, viewers see children and animals in dirty and unfit environments, where they are scavenging for food and shelter. Usually both the animals and children are unnaturally skinny and there is sad, depressing music playing. A celebrity or well known public figure is narrating the commercial, in attempt to make the public feel sorry for the animals and children.